REVIEW 1 cited by
Optimistic and Adaptive Lagrangian Hedging
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
In online learning an algorithm plays against an environment with losses possibly picked by an adversary at each round. The generality of this framework includes problems that are not adversarial, for example offline optimization, or saddle point problems (i.e. min max optimization). However, online algorithms are typically not designed to leverage additional structure present in non-adversarial problems. Recently, slight modifications to well-known online algorithms such as optimism and adaptive step sizes have been used in several domains to accelerate online learning -- recovering optimal rates in offline smooth optimization, and accelerating convergence to saddle points or social welfare in smooth games. In this work we introduce optimism and adaptive stepsizes to Lagrangian hedging, a class of online algorithms that includes regret-matching, and hedge (i.e. multiplicative weights). Our results include: a general general regret bound; a path length regret bound for a fixed smooth loss, applicable to an optimistic variant of regret-matching and regret-matching+; optimistic regret bounds for $\Phi$ regret, a framework that includes external, internal, and swap regret; and optimistic bounds for a family of algorithms that includes regret-matching+ as a special case.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
An Optimistic Algorithm for Online Convex Optimization with Adversarial Constraints
An optimistic meta-algorithm achieves O(sqrt(E_T(f))) regret and O(sqrt(E_T(g+)) log T) constraint violation for online convex optimization with adversarial constraints, where E_T measures cumulative prediction error.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.